Q8 - Politician : My opponent says our zoning laws

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

Friends,

This one is from the LSAT LR book. I have a question.

Let's first dissect the argument.

Argument :

Conclusion - Opponents' lifestyle shouldn't be taken seriously.
Premise - His lifestyle contradicts his own argument

Why is E) incorrect? In describing the relationship between the lifestyle and the argument, the politician says that his opponent lives in a house. However, the fact that the opponent has ALSO lived in an apartment building in the past would weaken the argument. I agree that D) is better than E). But, E) could be considered an example in which the author "forgot" to consider additional premise, which, if true, would weaken the argument.

Here's a similar argument:

Premise - Bumblebee bats fly in the night.
Conclusion - All bats are nocturnal.

Weakener - Fruit bats are not active in night.

We could use the above analogous situation to say that the opponent is not "contradicting" his own argument. Essentially, the politician argument *fails* to consider another premise, which, if true, would kill the argument.

Thoughts?

Thanks

[timmydoeslsat]

There is a difference between pointing out a flaw of an argument and actually weakening an argument. Your example of the bats could be described as a generalization, which is flawed. The argument went from discussing one type of bats to concluding about bats in general. You could say that the argument fails to consider that not all bats share the same traits. And you weakened the argument by exposing that assumption and, in fact, showing it to be a false assumption.

In this argument, however, I would not say that this argument is analagous to the bat argument.

This argument could be seen through this variety:

My doctor says that eating red meat is unhealthy.
But I saw my doctor at Burger Town restaurant scarfing down burgers.
Therefore, his statement should not be taken seriously.

This, obviously, does not give us evidence as to whether or not eating meat is unhealthy. In the same way, the stimulus tells of us a politician advocating for a switch to apartment buildings and away from single-family homes.

The fact that he does not follow through on his advice does not mean that his advice is not worthy and of paramount importance.

Answer choice E does not do anything for us, as it is still true that his current lifestyle is contradicting his advice. But, contradiction of advice, through a way of life, is not sufficient evidence of discounting the advice.

[phoebster21]

Friends,

This one is from the LSAT LR book. I have a question.

Let's first dissect the argument.

Argument :

Conclusion - Opponents' lifestyle shouldn't be taken seriously.
Premise - His lifestyle contradicts his own argument

Why is E) incorrect? In describing the relationship between the lifestyle and the argument, the politician says that his opponent lives in a house. However, the fact that the opponent has ALSO lived in an apartment building in the past would weaken the argument. I agree that D) is better than E). But, E) could be considered an example in which the author "forgot" to consider additional premise, which, if true, would weaken the argument.

Here's a similar argument:

Premise - Bumblebee bats fly in the night.
Conclusion - All bats are nocturnal.

Weakener - Fruit bats are not active in night.

We could use the above analogous situation to say that the opponent is not "contradicting" his own argument. Essentially, the politician argument *fails* to consider another premise, which, if true, would kill the argument.

Thoughts?

Thanks

Quick reading question:
When you say "Conclusion - Opponents' lifestyle shouldn't be taken seriously," are you referring to the conclusion of the stimulus or the conclusion (i.e. flaw) you've found?

Because when the stim says "his lifestyle contradicts his own argument, which should therefore not be taken seriously," I think the thing that "shouldn't be taken seriously" is referring to his argument (i.e. zoning laws too strongly promote suburban...should be changed.." and not the opponent's lifestyle

[tommywallach]

Yep, you're right. Look like a typo.

-t